West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Robin it seems to me that you are deliberately misrepresenting what we have proposed. I have made it very clear indeed that asking the trust to take on heritage is NOT shunting it off into a corner. At the moment the plc just does not have the capacity to do this. You will know that my entire background is heritage and the last thing I want to do is run it down. By moving this to the trust, we take it to a position where someone will actually have the time and wherewithal to do something sensible. Indeed, doing nothing and leaving things as they were is the very worst option. I, for one, trust the WSSRT to do this properly. Clearly the plc will support the WSSRT and I think I might have located a significant funding pot to go with it (not entirely sure about that yet).
I hope to have further evidence demonstrating the PLC's commitment to heritage soon. So please do not misrepresent what we are doing.

As regards moving to other structures. Personally I am not against this. I think we are open to all ideas. Nothing is closed off. But at the moment we are still recovering from the damaging fall out with the WSRA and we need to repair that structure and get us all working together properly before we attempt to throw it all up in the air again. I am working very hard to repair that situation and it would be good if all our supporters did the same thing. That way we could move on much more rapidly.
Ian Coleby

 

There's a lot more appeared on that other site:

http://www.wsra-railway-history.co.uk/news/

 

Very well said Ian. We need to strike a balance between the commercial, and legal, requirements whilst maintaining, when reasonably possible, as much of the heritage as we can. “Signgate” was sadly a classic example of what not to do as was the roof at Crowcombe. However, we should not get too obsessive about this nor dwell on the previous mistakes. We need to learn from them and prevent future blunders. That will come by cooperative vigilance and forward thinking.

 

Ian

We have a different view of how, perhaps, to achieve the same thing. It is not a misrepresentation to hold and express a differing view or to express skepticism about the wisdom and effect of a proposal. The present reality is that the WSR plc takes the lead in the Railway’s core activities. It sets the lead business plan, for example. It leads on our interaction with the public. It decides what events the Railway runs. It holds the head lease from Somerset County Council Etc etc.

My view, which we have discussed, is that heritage needs a seat at the top table to achieve that. To do other, IMHO, carries great risk of decisions being made without that input. We have seen a number of examples in recent years and months. I was invited to be a member of a heritage committee led by a WSR plc Director. That appeared to be a useful forward step and I was happy to agree to help. That committee never met.

You have a different view. My view of your proposal, as so far announced, is that it is a retrograde step from the above. My working life gives me a view of the decision-making processes of many organisations of all types and I have well-formed views about which structures are effective and which not. I have not been impressed with the WSR plc’s decision-making in recent times. We have spoken about that.

However, we must travel hopefully. I have an open mind, and I look forward to a debate about your proposals, whatever they are, when they are made public. You will know that when I believe in a cause, an idea or a person, like most true enthusiasts, then no one works harder, or with more loyalty or determination to achieve the common goal.

But you and I are individuals. As the two of us we can achieve little. The trick will be to have all the thousands of Railway supporters enthused by common goals. Then we will move (Somerset) mountains.

Robin

 

Peter.

‘Signgate’ and the Crowcombe Goods Office provide valuable tests for any new proposed structures. Would the failures which occurred there be prevented by any new proposals? I was hopeful that the ‘heritage committee’ would have done just that. But to do so would have required it to be an effective body given access, for example, to the proposal to erect new crossing signs before they were ordered.

I genuinely look forward to seeing what is proposed and testing that against these and other heritage concerns.

Robin

 

I am keen to see that everyone involved in decision making within the railway “family” understands the importance of avoiding the errors of the past. The problem is how to do it without introducing more bureaucracy and by changing the organisational culture so the importance of heritage aspects carries more weight.

 

Yes thanks.

Did you know that every visit to Facebook they replant them?

 

And moreover, every time you visit any other web page that has a "Like us on Facebook" button, Facebook will inspect or plant its cookies and record what web page you are visiting - they can do this because the button graphic is hosted by Facebook, not by the host site.

 

Indeed. I think there are no "hosted" buttons on my site but if anyone finds such a button, please let me know and I'll remove it.

Steve

 

Personally I would add the polycarbonate roof on the Dunster gents as the most recent example.

 

Does not paint a great picture of West Somerset, after reading this article the phrase "out of the frying pan into the fire" comes to mind.

 

Meanwhile, back at the Railway.,.

A single perfect snowflake.

Out early yesterday morning to brave the chill to get a coat of gloss on the Timetable board at Stogumber before the 2018 season starts on Saturday. Just as I finished it started snowing but the lightest you could imagine at first - single snowflakes regally descending and setting on dry fence tops and seats. And among them examples of that perfect, beautiful, 6-fold symmetry which arises from the geometry of water molecules. What a wonder to be in the right place to see it.

(Mind you, rumour has it that panic buying started in Taunton and Minehead supermarkets shortly thereafter... )

 

Ahaaa, the first cuckoo of spring.

 

Baseless self-justifying blether from two individuals who will shortly face their day in court.

 

The trustees have made no secret of what they are doing in the matter of 4160. Or indeed in the matter of the previous trustees. We have an obligation under charity law to do these things. The situation is debated carefully at every trustee meeting.
Members who are unhappy with the current course of action are free to contact the Association and express their views.
Similarly members are free to stand as trustees themselves and indeed I'd encourage that. I may well offer my resignation again this year and re-stand to ensure members have the chance to elect the trustees that they want running their Association.

Finally to paraphrase Donald Trump this is old news.

 

On the heritage/operating argument, as far as I can see, either (but possibly not both!) Ian and Robin may be proven to be correct. The Trust has an obvious interest in heritage (is perhaps the fear WSRplc does not?) but in the end, for this to have practical effect, WSRplc management has to take note of what they say. This doesn't mean always 'doing as they are told' (and the danger is the first 'issue' is one where WSRplc may have good reasons not to follow WSSRT's recommendations, or may be one where they happily do so). Obviously, Ian is key to this and hence the ultimate driver of change is within WSRplc.

Actually, Ian, Robin or any individual in the right position can make huge difference. My own experience is that one person at a time in the right place made heritage much more important and a change in that person could make it almost disappear off the radar, A weakness of structure perhaps, but preserved railways tend to operate with 'thin' structures, so heavy dependence on one or two individuals in a number of areas can be common.

And, remember, 'heritage' is actually a vital element of the 'product' a preserved railway's passengers wants to buy.

Steven

 

Yes indeed but IMHO where "heritage" is concerned, these railways tend to "strain at gnats but swallow camels".

Paul H

 

It strikes me that the structure proposed by the plc is capable of working. However, the structure proposed by Robin is more likely to work in practice.

 

Personally I feel that we should not provide any publicity for that particular site, which is simply blatant propaganda from a couple of sad people with an anti-WSR axe to grind.

Indeed, not the only site. I often notice that ads appearing on Nat Pres are from other sites that I've recently visited.

DaveB

 

Thank you.

Try the following (entirely hypothetical) example as a ‘thought experiment’.

A private loco owner wishes to establish on the WSR a base for his locomotives. This will involve building facilities adjacent to other WSR facilities. Those matters will have heritage implications. The discussions with the owner are commercially sensitive but plainly have to be shared with WSR plc Directors.

Which of the proposed arrangements most easily and securely, provides ‘heritage’ with a seat at that table?

Robin